Why Obama is at Fault for Global Warming you can read

[Robert]

all about it on Friday.

Yes folks the insanity grows

Personally I think he's at fault for just being an idiot who believes his own Propaganda like his willing sheep.

Gore faults Obama on global warming | The Associated Press | News | Washington Examiner

 

[blastoff]

Anyone spewing as much hot air as Barry should be singled out.

 

[Old Rocks]

President Obama should be more active in the debate on mankinds altering of the climate we depend on for our agriculture. However, that is moot, because no matter what he says or does, the deniers have the upper hand at present. And will have until the problem becomes so acute that the denial cannot no longer be stated. However, by then, all we can do is deal with consequences. Consequences that we are seeing starting already.

 

[westwall]

President Obama should be more active in the debate on mankinds altering of the climate we depend on for our agriculture. However, that is moot, because no matter what he says or does, the deniers have the upper hand at present. And will have until the problem becomes so acute that the denial cannot no longer be stated. However, by then, all we can do is deal with consequences. Consequences that we are seeing starting already.

Sure olfraud sure. Your own groups claim that for the piddling expense of a trillion dollars we the human race can lower (possibly) the temperature by one degree more then 100 years in the future.....maybe.


Sounds like a great investment. And please inform the class on exactly what is so bad about a three degree rise in global temps. Be detailed and no computer models. Please use paleoclimate records and paleobiologic records that describe what occured the last time the worlds temps were that high......which was long before man could influence the temps.

 

[BlindBoo]

He helped the White House press the House to pass a global warming bill in 2009 that would have set the first-ever limits on the pollution blamed for global warming, a bill that died in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Lame. It was the Blue dogs in the Senate not the President.

 

[Old Rocks]

President Obama should be more active in the debate on mankinds altering of the climate we depend on for our agriculture. However, that is moot, because no matter what he says or does, the deniers have the upper hand at present. And will have until the problem becomes so acute that the denial cannot no longer be stated. However, by then, all we can do is deal with consequences. Consequences that we are seeing starting already.

Sure olfraud sure. Your own groups claim that for the piddling expense of a trillion dollars we the human race can lower (possibly) the temperature by one degree more then 100 years in the future.....maybe.


Sounds like a great investment. And please inform the class on exactly what is so bad about a three degree rise in global temps. Be detailed and no computer models. Please use paleoclimate records and paleobiologic records that describe what occured the last time the worlds temps were that high......which was long before man could influence the temps.

The Eemian interglacial was the penultimate warm period enjoyed by the Earth during the Quaternary (the last one is the current epoch: the Holocene).





According to the most used dating system (something we will discuss later on), 127,000 years ago the penultimate glaciation ended and an interglacial period lasting several millennia began. This period is known as the Eemian. The interglacial lasted until 118,000 years ago, although it hung on until 106,000 years ago in Europe.





The name given to the penultimate interglacial era in Europe comes from the Eem river valley in Holland, where sediments from that epoch were found containing warm-weather fauna fossils and pollen from leafy trees. It is believed that at the height of that interglacial epoch, global temperatures were between 1º C and 2º C warmer than today. Models which take into account then-and-now differences in insolation levels and pollen analyses indicate that in parts of Asia, July temperatures were as much as 4º C warmer than today. However, in some exceptional cases, some models raise doubts as to whether the mean global temperature was actually quite that high (Winter, 2003).


Chapter 6. The Eemian. 1. Heat 2. Higher sea level 3. Different insolation 4. Climate stability An important unanswered question: when and where did the interglacial begin? 1. Heat


In England, where the period is known as the Ipswichian interglacial, many fossils of hippopotamuses and other animals only found today in tropical and subtropical regions have been found. In Greenland, ice cores indicate temperatures of 5º C higher than today, 123,000 years ago (North Greenland Ice Core Project members, 2004). In the Arctic, the expanse of winter ice shrunk and the temperature of the oceans’ surface waters was also higher than at present. Based on the study of alkenones and the Ca/Mg ratio of foraminifera, we can conclude that the surface waters of many seas were between 2º C and 3º C warmer than today (Lea, 2000; Pelejero, 2003; Martrat, 2004).

.............................................................................................................

At that time, the sea level was between 4 and 6 metres above its current mark. This may have been due to the fact that a large part of the ice sheet that today covers the western part of Antarctica did not yet exist. However, another, highly controversial, hypothesis states that the elevated sea level was due rather to an almost complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet (Cuffey, 2000). Nevertheless, during the exploration of the Dye-3 ice core site in southern Greenland, ice dating from that epoch was found, thus indicating that the Greenland ice sheet remained almost completely unaltered (Oerlemans, 2006).





The high sea level recorded during most of the Eemian epoch gave rise to a number of changes in the world’s coastlines. It is possible that Scandinavia became an enormous island when part of Finland was flooded by the rising seas, an event which would have joined the Baltic Sea with the Arctic Ocean. It is also possible that the Jutland Peninsula in Denmark would have been cut off from mainland Europe.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, this rise occurred over a period of thousands of years, not the couple of hundred years in which we expect to see a similiar rise due to the GHGs we have emitted. One of the consequences of such a fast change is a very unsettled weather pattern as the atmospheric and ocean currents settle into a new pattern. Which, of course, puts our agriculture at risk. Look at the last year, Russia, Pakistan, China, Australia, Texas, and now our Mid-West.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

President Obama should be more active in the debate on mankinds altering of the climate we depend on for our agriculture. However, that is moot, because no matter what he says or does, the deniers have the upper hand at present. And will have until the problem becomes so acute that the denial cannot no longer be stated. However, by then, all we can do is deal with consequences. Consequences that we are seeing starting already.

Phil Jones and the unaltered data agree: there is no Global Warming at the present time

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Also in "Earth in the Balance" Gore blames water vapor for the warming.

That's water vapor.

H2O

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 lags the warming.

Warming first, more CO2 follows

 

[Old Rocks]

President Obama should be more active in the debate on mankinds altering of the climate we depend on for our agriculture. However, that is moot, because no matter what he says or does, the deniers have the upper hand at present. And will have until the problem becomes so acute that the denial cannot no longer be stated. However, by then, all we can do is deal with consequences. Consequences that we are seeing starting already.

Phil Jones and the unaltered data agree: there is no Global Warming at the present time

Of course that was not what Dr. Jones stated, but who expects anything but lies by innuendo from you, Franky boy.

And the situation has changed now with the very warm year of 2010.

BBC News - Global warming since 1995 'now significant'

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair.

Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.

But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real".

Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis


By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance.

If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20.

Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.

"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.

"It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 lags the warming.

Warming first, more CO2 follows

From the site where you got the graph.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.


Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.



Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

 

[Old Rocks]

Also in "Earth in the Balance" Gore blames water vapor for the warming.

That's water vapor.

H2O

Are you getting stupider, Or do you just enjoy seeing the real science presented one more time?


Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works


The skeptic argument...
Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
"Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. If you get a fall evening and the sky is clear, heat will escape, the temperature will drop. If there's cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour and the temperature stays warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at noon 52°C. By midnight, it's -3.6°C. It's caused because there is very little water vapour in the atmosphere and is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas." (Tim Ball)

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming


When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

 

[IanC]

if extra water vapour didnt rise and form clouds it might add an extra 1C. but it does

 

[CrusaderFrank]

President Obama should be more active in the debate on mankinds altering of the climate we depend on for our agriculture. However, that is moot, because no matter what he says or does, the deniers have the upper hand at present. And will have until the problem becomes so acute that the denial cannot no longer be stated. However, by then, all we can do is deal with consequences. Consequences that we are seeing starting already.

Phil Jones and the unaltered data agree: there is no Global Warming at the present time

Of course that was not what Dr. Jones stated, but who expects anything but lies by innuendo from you, Franky boy.

And the situation has changed now with the very warm year of 2010.

BBC News - Global warming since 1995 'now significant'

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair.

Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.

But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real".

Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis


By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance.

If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20.

Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.

"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.

"It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."

When you refuse to test your hypothesis in a lab, because you know you'll fail, all you have left is statistical significance.

And you fail there too.

Also, stop tampering withe data.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 lags the warming.

Warming first, more CO2 follows

From the site where you got the graph.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.


Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.



Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

Who are we going to believe, the Warmers or our lying eyes?

The only thing the CO2 in the chart amplified is how totally bogus your AGW fraud truly is.

CO2: it follows warming

 

[westwall]

Of course, this rise occurred over a period of thousands of years, not the couple of hundred years in which we expect to see a similiar rise due to the GHGs we have emitted. One of the consequences of such a fast change is a very unsettled weather pattern as the atmospheric and ocean currents settle into a new pattern. Which, of course, puts our agriculture at risk. Look at the last year, Russia, Pakistan, China, Australia, Texas, and now our Mid-West.

Entire cultures have risen and fallen in a period of hundreds of years. Your argument is specious and non sensical. A hundred years from now the technology will be so great that you can't imagine the differences that will be. A hundred years from now if a person wishes they will probably be able to live as a fish so an increase in ocean depth would be fun.

A hundred years from now the world will be so different that it will be unrecognizable to us.

 

[westwall]

CO2 lags the warming.

Warming first, more CO2 follows

From the site where you got the graph.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.


Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.



Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

Only according to a discredited computer model. Not one iota of empirical data to support it.

 

[waltky]

Lil' animals movin' north as temps increase...

Critters moving away from global warming faster
Thu Aug 18,`11 WASHINGTON – Animals across the world are fleeing global warming by heading north much faster than they were less than a decade ago, a new study says.

About 2,000 species examined are moving away from the equator at an average rate of more than 15 feet per day, about a mile per year, according to new research published Thursday in the journal Science which analyzed previous studies. Species are also moving up mountains to escape the heat, but more slowly, averaging about 4 feet a year. The species — mostly from the Northern Hemisphere and including plants — moved in fits and starts, but over several decades it averages to about 8 inches an hour away from the equator. "The speed is an important issue," said study main author Chris Thomas of the University of York. "It is faster than we thought."

Included in the analysis was a 2003 study that found species moving north at a rate of just more than a third of a mile per year and up at a rate of 2 feet a year. Camille Parmesan of the University of Texas, who conducted that study, said the new research makes sense because her data ended around the late 1990s and the 2000s were far hotter. Federal weather data show the last decade was the hottest on record, and 2010 tied with 2005 for the hottest year on record. Gases from the burning of fossil fuel, especially carbon dioxide, are trapping heat in the atmosphere, warming the Earth and changing the climate in several ways, according to the overwhelming majority of scientists and the world's top scientific organizations.

As the temperatures soared in the 2000s, the species studied moved faster to cooler places, Parmesan said. She pointed specifically to the city copper butterfly in Europe and the purple emperor butterfly in Sweden. The comma butterfly in Great Britain has moved more than 135 miles in 21 years, Thomas said. It's "independent confirmation that the climate is changing," Parmesan said. One of the faster moving species is the British spider silometopus, Thomas said. In 25 years, the small spider has moved its home range more than 200 miles north, averaging 8 miles a year, he said.

Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who wasn't part of this study but praised it as clever and conservative, points to another species, the American pika, a rabbitlike creature that has been studied in Yellowstone National Park for more than a century. The pika didn't go higher than 7,800 feet in 1900, but in 2004 they were seen at 9,500 feet, she said. For Thomas, this is something he notices every time he returns to his childhood home in southern England. The 51-year-old biologist didn't see the egret, a rather warm climate bird, in the Cuckmere Valley while growing up. But now, he said, "All the ditches have little egrets. It was just a bizarre sight."

More Critters moving away from global warming faster - Yahoo! News

 

[wirebender]

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.

Describe the mechanism by which it accomplished that feat. And don't give me a link to your scripture because I already read it and there is no description of any physical mechanism there and no proof that we are responsible. Try to actually describe how you thnk CO2 amplifies the warming in your own words.

I know discussing science in your own words is a real strech for you, but give it a whorl. Or admit that you don't have a clue and simply take what you are told on faith and make your decision of who to believe based on your political leanings.